On the construction of research "results"

I want to just briefly use this blog post to think about something that came up in chapter 6 of the Jorgensen & Phillips book. Specifically, in their discussion of critical discourse analysis's approach to a modified ideology critique. I have yet to finish the chapter, but I am thinking about this in the context of having read Rogers & Schaenen's (2013) review of CDA scholarship in literacy. Their review focused on assessing debates and critiques of CDA in literacy as it approaches context, reflexivity, social action and a deconstructive/reconstructive stance toward inquiry. Jorgensen and Phillips claim that CDA situates itself as offering one form of knowledge (discourse?) that "is treated as a contribution to the public debate rather than the final arbiter of truth". Rogers & Schaenen explore this same idea by identifying studies that take a minimal, moderate or high call to social action. They found that the majority of studies (78%) took a minimal or moderate call to social action. These minimal and moderate calls, or perhaps according to Jorgensen and Phillips contributions to the public debate, were identified as either calling for a general change to pedagogy or society or a more specific call to social action or engaging/reporting on social action as part of a study. The high level calls embedded social action within their research design and had authors go into detail about what changes need to be made and how to enact such changes.

I guess what I am considering is, given the locations of publication of the articles reviewed, and in general the ways that research is presented, I wonder how authors go about situating themselves as offering one form of knowledge rather than a more concrete truth constructed by a researcher. I am really looking forward to reading and jumping in a more detailed fashion to the nuances of how researchers understand the ways their own work is constructed around ideologies and issues of power. In education broadly, and sociocultural and critical methodologies within literacy more specifically, I have always recognized, and felt an affinity toward, the pragmatic consequences of research. Discourse analysis feels quite comfortable for me, but I have also felt a concern about the ways such research is presented - it is very 'high minded' stuff. I remember in our first class you (Jessica) asked us to think about what our elevator speech would be about this course. I think elevator speeches are always hard, but those around discourse seem especially hard given the ways you first must construct a shared understanding of discursive practice and a shared understanding of the role that discursive practice plays in the world. I think as a budding researcher, my first task (and the one I hope to take up in the literature review) centers heavily on the means literacy researchers have of unpacking this type of work for both critical and pragmatic purposes - as I believe those calls to action and that contribution to knowledge production should be. That said, it seems that solid methodological approaches to discourse analysis require us to think so rigorously about every single step. I am not complaining about this, rather I find it a unique challenge. The methodologies I have been exposed to thus far seem not to take these epistemological unpackings quite so seriously, and when they do they haven't rung true. This is to say that the more I explore the underpinnings of discourse analysis the more I find that it fits with what I see in the world and how I feel most comfortable sharing what meanings I am able to take away from my data.


Jørgenson, M. & Phillips, L.. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London, UK: Sage Publications.

Rogers, R. & Schaenen, I. (2013). Critical discourse analysis in literacy education : A review of the literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 49(1), 121-143.